4 ms·

The web1, web2, web3 model makes sense. And it captures three totally different network architectures, each of which have different economic consequences. web1

The web1, web2, web3 model makes sense. And it captures three totally different network architectures, each of which have different economic consequences. web1 -> peer-to-peer decentralized networks without built-in consensus or economics; end up de facto centralized because of this web2 -> corporate owned networks; from iMessage to Tiktok to Reddit, this is most major networks today web3 -> networks whose decentralization is enforced by cryptography and economics; Ethereum being one such example of a programmable network If the terms were just marketing that would be one thing. But they actually describe real differences in properties that have significant consequences for those who build and rely on them.

StefanWestfal 3y ago
Don’t you think that web3 would also end up centralized? The underlying technology might be decentralized but the ownership is not. For web2 we have more or less working mechanisms like antitrust offices, on the blockchain we do not. In a proof of stacks scenario we would have the power distributed in a plutocratic fashion without mechanism for the many to counter balance the mighty few.
- preseinger 3y ago
  100% delegating authority to an open and permissionless network of participants doesn't magically solve the problems of centralization, it mostly just subverts the progress we've made as a species towards mitigating those problems
rchaud 3y ago
But that's not what Web 2.0 is. It's commonly understood as the era of interactive web technologies, like: - AJAX (Google Maps, Gmail) - RSS (podcasts, blogs) - Bittorrent - jQuery (website interactivity) - Flash games - Flash video (early YouTube) - database driven server-side CMSes (Wordpress, Drupal) There is nothing about corporate ownership in these technologies in and of themselves.
preseinger 3y ago
basically, no web1 and web2 were equally "centralized", the only difference was the scope of their centralized actors web3 is "decentralized" in a way that is effectively meaningless, trust still exists, authorities still exist, the only difference is that those centralized actors are no longer bound by rules or regulations

StefanWestfal 3y ago

Don’t you think that web3 would also end up centralized? The underlying technology might be decentralized but the ownership is not. For web2 we have more or less working mechanisms like antitrust offices, on the blockchain we do not. In a proof of stacks scenario we would have the power distributed in a plutocratic fashion without mechanism for the many to counter balance the mighty few.

preseinger 3y ago
100% delegating authority to an open and permissionless network of participants doesn't magically solve the problems of centralization, it mostly just subverts the progress we've made as a species towards mitigating those problems

rchaud 3y ago

But that's not what Web 2.0 is. It's commonly understood as the era of interactive web technologies, like: - AJAX (Google Maps, Gmail) - RSS (podcasts, blogs) - Bittorrent - jQuery (website interactivity) - Flash games - Flash video (early YouTube) - database driven server-side CMSes (Wordpress, Drupal) There is nothing about corporate ownership in these technologies in and of themselves.

preseinger 3y ago

basically, no web1 and web2 were equally "centralized", the only difference was the scope of their centralized actors web3 is "decentralized" in a way that is effectively meaningless, trust still exists, authorities still exist, the only difference is that those centralized actors are no longer bound by rules or regulations